So, you know what keywords to add and which ones to omit so that the search engine turns up what you already know you are looking for.
Were you always so wise? Did you come out of the womb knowing that?
Never once in your past did you ever have trouble finding something, that you now look back on as trivial?
OP should not be attempting to program.
If the OP doesn't know what you know, they shouldn't even bother starting trying to program.
With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
| [reply] |
In some cases you are right. You need to know the right keyword to find the answer. In this case entering a plain old English sentence "How do I check whether an image exists in Perl?" into Google would be enough. The very first link leads to "Perl file exists tutorial - How to tell if a file exists in Perl using file test". Sure, you have to tell google you are not interested in answers related to PHP, C#, Java, Visual Basic, Pascal, C, C++, Brainfuck, ...
And no, it's not about what they know or do not know. What's important is whether they are wiling to invest at least a bit of their own effort into solving their own problems. It's one thing to come with "Hey dudes, how do I check if an image exists" (cause I did not bother trying to look up anything) and another to come with "OK, guys, I have code like this and the file test operator doesn't seem to work. I'm testing the existence of an image before I include it in generated HTML and the test always returns false.". The second case is perfectly fine, there are several possible causes of the problem, not all of them entirely obvious, some of them operating system/web server dependent (the current working directory is not the same in all webservers!) and I'm sure all monks will be happy to help.
The OP explained what he needs clearly and formatted his post so I do think he deserved help, he's not really a member of the "gimme cookie" group. On the other hand "you can find the answer like this" is help in my book and not only does it help with this particular question, but it also encourages the posted to google for answers next time. Which not only frees monks to answer more complicated questions, but also (from the OP's point of view more importantly) tends to be quicker.
RTFM or LMGTFY response, if accompanied with information about what section of what FM to read or what to ask Google, is in my not so humble opinion absolutely fine and if someone feels hurt by such a response, he/she should grow a thicker skin.
Jenda
Enoch was right!
Enjoy the last years of Rome.
| [reply] |
Thanks, jenda and "Amen!"
Your approach seems to me far more likely to help newcomers become productive Perl programmers and far more likely to transform newcomers into contributing Monks than a practice of providing whatever is asked Note1 by the 'gimme' artist. If such individuals are driven away from the Monastery my view is "so be it!" The individual who believes s/he is somehow entitled to a learning-free solution is -- in my opinion -- less than likely to ever take the next step toward becoming a skilled programmer.
That's not to say I want the 'gimme' folk driven away (though I'm comfortable with the possibility -- nay, probability -- that some of the thin-skinned will be); rather, I want to see them adopt what I've long understood to be the Monastery's guiding principle -- roughly paraphrased as "we're here to help you learn; not to write free code."
When I first arrived, I got a quick dose of "RTFM" (which was unhelpful at that point) and multiple doses of "Read X and come back with your code and questions, if you don't grok X." That was helpful... and introduced me to what I believe was long the Monastery policy (again, loosely paraphrased):
We don't write free code and frown on requests for same; in fact, we don't even write demonstration code that solves your whole problem; but we will offer demo snippets and/or documentation if you've shown that you made a serious attempt to learn/solve your own problem...because we believe that will help you improve your skills.
Fundamentally, that approach seems to me to encourage the seeker to learn (or learn how to learn).
Note1 Tangentially, it seems to me that many of the examples of complete-solutions to SOPW are UNinstructive; yes, they're solutions, but are often posted without the kind of commentary or references to documents that explain the solution. Suspicious mind that I am, I can't help wondering if such answers are merely intended to show how clever the writer is or if they reflect a belief that the underpinnings of that solution are so obvious as to obviate the need for instruction. </end tangent>>
Updated with the parenthetic acknowledgment of paraphrase at the end of para 4.
| [reply] |
